RE RAHMAN KAZI HABIBUR

CACV 45/2026, [2026] HKCA 488

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 45 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1060 OF 2021)

_________________

________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) given on 13 January 2026[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision dated 2 July 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). The Board had dismissed his appeal against the decision dated 29 December 2020 of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) which in turn had rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[2] , BOR 3 risk[3] , persecution risk[4] and BOR 2[5] risk grounds.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh born in 1993. He entered Hong Kong by boat illegally in January 2020. He surrendered to the Immigration Department in February 2020, and made his non-refoulement claim two months later. His claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh, he would be harmed or killed by activists from the Awami League (“AL”) due to his affiliation with a student group called Chhatra Shibir within the Jamaat Party. He says that he was also falsely accused by the AL of having committed arson and vandalism in 2016 and false charges were laid against him. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision[6] : see [1] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [5]-[11] of the Form CALL-1. We will not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 19 January 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision where he stated that he disagreed with the Board’s decision and that his case has not been properly investigated and was not determined fairly.

4.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court. We therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that the applicant’s credibility was significantly undermined due to inconsistencies, evasiveness and contradictions in his account. On the whole, the Board did not find him to be telling the truth, and found that his case was both vague and unbelievable. There was nothing to substantiate any assault or torture at all, whether by AL or by the police, or that the applicant was subject to the criminal charges claimed. He had not availed himself of state protection. Furthermore, the alleged threats were, on his own case, confined to his local area, so that he could have relocated within Bangladesh to avoid any potential harm. The Board thus concluded that the applicant had failed to show any real risk of harm entitling him to non-refoulement protection under any of the applicable grounds. These were findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received, and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.  In the Form 86, the applicant set out a number of general assertions without indicating how they applied to his case. He also repeated his claim that he faced a risk of torture and persecution in Bangladesh. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are satisfied that the Judge gave proper and adequate reasons for his conclusion that the intended judicial review has no prospect of success.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[1] [2026] HKCFI 174.

[2] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[3] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[4] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non‑refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[5] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[6] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/ judg/html/vetted/other/en/ 2021/HCAL001060_2021_files/ the_Board's_Decision.pdf